I am a senior editor at Forbes, covering legal affairs, corporate finance, macroeconomics and the occasional sailing story. I was the Southwest Bureau manager for Forbes in Houston from 1999 to 2003, when I returned home to Connecticut for a Knight fellowship at Yale Law School. Before that I worked for Bloomberg Business News in Houston and the late, great Dallas Times Herald and Houston Post. While I am a Chartered Financial Analyst and have a year of law school under my belt, most of what I know about financial journalism, I learned in Texas.

9/08/2011 @ 2:09PM1,898 views

Appeals Court Rejects Virginia Challenge To Obamacare

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today rejected two different attacks on the Obama healthcare reform act, delivering a double blow to opponents who hope to use the courts to nullify the law. The decisions also set up a double conflict among courts that only the U.S. Supreme Court can unravel: Whether the healthcare act is constitutional, and whether states have a right to sue over it in the first place. Courts in Florida and Georgia have upheld state-led challenges to Obamacare, while the Fourth Circuit threw out Virginia’s case.

“The Virginia decision is not helpful” to other state suits, said said Gregory Katsas. a partner at Jones Day who represented the National Federation of Independent Business in the recent 11th Circuit victory for Obamacare foes. But ultimately, he added, “these decisions just underscore the need for the Supreme Court to settle this matter.”

In the most significant decision (thanks, Avik Roy, for uploading to Forbes), a majority on the formerly conservative appeals court in Richmond, Va. threw out a lower-court ruling that found the act’s individual mandate unconstitutional. Virginia simply doesn’t have the right to sue the federal government on behalf of its citizens, the court ruled, since “a state possesses no legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from the government of the United States.”

In the second, the court threw out a challenge by a conservative group as an improper attempt to block a tax from being collected. In so doing, the court rejected the Obama administration’s contentions that the “penalty” associated with failing to buy insurance is not a tax. The court effectively said whatever Congress called it, it’s a tax: Only if there is “something talismanic about the label `penalty,’” the majority held, does the fine collected by the Treasury fail to fall under the broad Anti-Injunction Act prohibiting citizens from using the courts to block a tax.

The decisions weren’t unexpected. Both were penned by Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, a Clinton appointee, and the other two judges randomly assigned to the cases were also Democratic appointees. The decisions are powerful in their simplicity, and might offer the U.S. Supreme Court a convenient way out of the intensely political question of whether to uphold the divisive law. Rather than deciding whether the law exceeds the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, the high court could simply rule that neither states nor individual citizens have the right to sue to have it overturned.

The Virginia case is potentially more devastating to Obamacare opponents, since they pinned their hopes on using Republican-leaning states to overturn the law. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta endorsed this approach last month, striking down the individual mandate as unconstitutional overreaching by Congress. Judges in Florida and Virginia also have ruled in favor of the states.

But in today’s decision, the Virginia appeals court said there was no basis for the suit because the law “imposes no obligations” on the state. A little basic doctrine is necessary here: Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. There must be a “case or controversy” and it must fit within the categories spelled out under the Constitution. Further, decisions over the years have established three tests to determine if a case can be heard. The plaintiff must have suffered an injury, the injury has to be linked to the defendant’s conduct, and the courts must be capable of redressing it somehow.

Virginia’s suit failed the first test, the court ruled, because the main injury the state claimed was Obamacare conflicted with the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, which prohibited enforcement of the individual mandate. The state claimed it was acting in a parens patriae role to protect its citizens but the Fourt Circuit wasn’t buying that. If anybody is acting in the role of a parent here, the court said, it’s the feds in enacting health care reform. The Virginia law served “merely as a smokescreen” to protect Virginia citizens from the penalties in the healthcare act and that sort of behavior ain’t allowed. So much for the states’ rights argument.

In the second decision the court threw out conservative Liberty University’s challenge to the law on somewhat novel grounds. Neither the government nor the plaintiffs based their cases on Anti-Injunction Act, which sensibly prevents people from using the courts to try and block the government from collecting taxes. The Obama administration refuses to call the penalty in the healthcare act a tax. But no matter; the Fourth Circuit decided the Anti-Injunction Act applies anyway and used that to bat Liberty’s case out of court. Allowing lawsuits like this would impede the Treasury’s ability to collect billions of dollars in revenue, the court ruled. If Congress is persuaded by the administration’s view that the insurance penalty is not a tax, then it can add a clause to the law specifically exempting it from the Anti-Injunction Act.

The effect of the ruling was to throw Liberty out of court as a plaintiff, since it was trying to achieve an impermissible end through the litigation. Justice Andre Davis, an Obama nominee, thought that went too far. He argued the court had jurisdiction over the case. But that doesn’t mean they’d do well there. Davis said he would have rejected arguments Obamacare exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

The 4 principal reasons why a federal government was formed: “(1) The common defense (national security); (2) the preservation of public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; (3) the regulation of commerce with other nations and between states; (4) the superintendent of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries (foreign affairs).” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No.23, 1787

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.” – James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 25, 1788

duh….

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined…..

the word “to” came from We the People.

Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite….

the words “to remain” also came from We the People.

When anyone reads the Constitution they have to read it in the way the founding fathers with feather quill goose pens and penmanship of poets wrote it.

No where in that paper is government mandating anything. It wasn’t written for a government, church nor corporation because government, church and corporations are not We the People.

So, when one or more persons rule in favor of government, church or corporations they are ruling against We the People.